@getollie/cli 0.0.5 → 0.2.1

package/library/web_applications-communication/vue2-elementui-flask-file-download-interface.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 1590,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please utilize your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure the generated code is executable for demonstration purposes. Create a file download interface using Vue2 with ElementUI and Flask.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the Vue2 front-end file download interface fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code includes proper Vue2 components with ElementUI integration for file selection, download progress tracking, and file handling. Check for proper event handling, data binding, and computed properties. Score 0 if the core Vue2 structure is missing, 5 if basic components are implemented but missing key features, and 10 if the implementation includes file list display, filtering, and robust download functionality.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the Flask backend API properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the Flask API includes routes for file listing, downloading, and proper HTTP responses with appropriate status codes and headers (especially Content-Disposition, Content-Type). Check for proper file path handling, security measures against path traversal attacks, and streaming for large files. Deduct 5 points if security measures are missing, and 3 points if streaming for large files is not implemented. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the communication between Vue2 and Flask properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code uses Axios or Fetch API correctly with proper error handling, request/response interceptors, and download progress tracking. Assess whether appropriate HTTP methods are used (GET for listing, GET with proper parameters or POST for downloading). Deduct 5 points if error handling is inadequate, 3 points if download progress tracking is missing. Give 10 points for complete implementation with proper CORS handling.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the file download functionality feature-complete?",
-      "description": "Verify whether the implementation includes essential file download features: file size display, mime-type identification, download progress indication, pause/resume capability (if applicable), and batch download functionality. Check for proper handling of various file types. Deduct 5 points if key features are missing, 3 points if the user experience during download is poor. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as invalid file paths, file access permissions, network interruption, large file downloads, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should be able to effectively handle these edge cases, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no exceptions are handled, give 0 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 5,
-      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. Preview for common file types 2. MD5/SHA verification for downloads 3. Download speed limiting options 4. Drag-and-drop interface for file organization). Add 3 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 6,
-      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
-      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant implementation of similar functions (e.g., multiple download methods coexisting) 2. Function modules unrelated to file downloading (e.g., a built-in media player) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations during downloads). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 7,
-      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
-      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating UI components, API services, and utility functions), unit test coverage, and build process automation. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or design patterns are not used; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if the build process is not automated. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 8,
-      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the overall design follows modern design principles: 1) Harmonious color matching (no more than 3 primary colors) 2) Proper layout spacing (element spacing follows the 8px multiple principle) 3) Professional font system (body font size ≥ 14px, line height over 1.5 times). Deduct 3 points for each crowded visual element, 5 points for a glaring color combination, and 5 points for chaotic text-image layout. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the dynamic effects conform to human perception characteristics: 1) Click feedback delay ≤ 100ms 2) Transition animation duration controlled between 300-500ms 3) Clear visual focus guidance for download buttons and progress indicators. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for visual after-images during fast scrolling of file lists, and 5 points for hard-to-find download buttons. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Web Applications-Communication",
-  "difficulty": "easy"
-}

package/library/web_applications-communication/vue2-uniapp-membership-card.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 243,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please utilize your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Be sure to ensure that the code you generate is executable for demonstration. Use Vue2 and uniApp to create a membership card.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the membership card core functionality fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the Vue2 components properly implement the membership card with appropriate data structures (user information, card status, points/balance) and necessary interactions (view details, use card). Score 0 if the core card functionality is missing, 5 if basic display is implemented, and 10 if full functionality including conditional rendering based on membership levels is implemented.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the uniApp cross-platform adaptation correctly implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code properly uses uniApp's conditional compilation (@ifdef), responsive layouts, and platform-specific API calls. Check if styles adapt to different screen sizes and device capabilities. Deduct 3 points if only one platform works well, 5 points if platform-specific features aren't utilized appropriately. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the membership card state management properly designed?",
-      "description": "Examine whether the solution properly manages membership data (using Vuex or similar state management), implements appropriate caching strategies for offline usage, and handles state transitions (card activation, expiration, level upgrades). Deduct 5 points if there's no persistent storage solution, 3 points if state updates aren't reactive. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Are authentication and security measures appropriately implemented?",
-      "description": "Check if the membership card includes necessary security features such as token-based authentication, secure storage of sensitive information, and protection against unauthorized access. Assess if the solution includes verification methods (QR codes, barcodes) for in-store usage. Deduct 5 points if authentication is missing, 3 points if there's no expiration/refresh mechanism. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as network failures, invalid card data, expired memberships, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should be able to effectively handle these edge cases, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no exceptions are handled, give 0 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 5,
-      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. Dynamic card visual effects based on usage 2. Location-based promotions integration 3. Interactive point redemption animations). Add 3 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 6,
-      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
-      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant implementation of similar functions (e.g., multiple card display components with overlapping functionality) 2. Function modules unrelated to membership cards (e.g., a built-in game unrelated to the loyalty program) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations that slow rendering). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 7,
-      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
-      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating UI components/API services/state management), component reusability, and build configuration for uniApp. Deduct 5 points if global properties are overused or Vue best practices are ignored; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if conditional compilation isn't properly handled. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 8,
-      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the membership card design follows modern design principles: 1) Harmonious color matching suitable for brand identity (no more than 3 primary colors) 2) Proper layout spacing (element spacing follows the 8px multiple principle) 3) Professional font system (body font size ≥ 14px, line height over 1.5 times). Deduct 3 points for each crowded visual element, 5 points for a glaring color combination, and 5 points for chaotic text-image layout. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the dynamic effects conform to human perception characteristics: 1) Card flip/reveal animations feel natural with proper easing 2) Transition animation duration controlled between 300-500ms 3) Clear visual feedback when scanning or using the card. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for jerky animations during transitions, and 5 points for hard-to-find key function buttons. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Web Applications-Communication",
-  "difficulty": "medium"
-}

package/library/web_applications-communication/vue3-announcement-viewer-count-real-time-updates.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 936,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Be sure to ensure that the code you generate is executable for display. Vue3 announcement viewer count with real-time updates.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the Vue3 component structure correctly implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate if the code follows Vue3 best practices with Composition API usage (setup(), ref(), reactive()), proper component organization (single file components), and correct lifecycle hooks (onMounted(), onUnmounted()). Deduct 5 points if Options API is used instead of Composition API; deduct 3 points if lifecycle hooks are improperly utilized; deduct 5 points if reactive state management is not implemented. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is real-time functionality properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Check if the code includes an effective real-time update mechanism (WebSockets, Server-Sent Events, or polling with appropriate intervals). Verify if connection management handles reconnection attempts, error states, and displays loading/error indicators. Deduct 5 points if only manual refresh is implemented, 3 points if the update mechanism has no error handling, and 5 points if there's no visual indicator during data loading. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the viewer count data storage and manipulation well-designed?",
-      "description": "Examine if the data structure for storing viewer counts is appropriate (time-series format for historical tracking, optimized for frequent updates). Check if state mutations follow Vue3 reactivity principles and if the code handles edge cases (null values, server errors, data type conversions). Deduct 5 points for improper reactivity implementation, 3 points for missing data validation, and 3 points for inefficient data structure choices. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is data visualization of viewer count implemented effectively?",
-      "description": "Evaluate the implementation of data visualization (charts/graphs using libraries like Chart.js, D3.js, or Vue-specific visualization libraries). Check if the visualization is responsive, handles different data ranges gracefully, includes proper axes labels, and shows trends clearly. Deduct 5 points if visualization is static (non-reactive to data changes), 3 points if it lacks visual clarity, and 5 points if it's not responsive to different screen sizes. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as network errors, API failures, data inconsistencies) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code should gracefully handle edge cases like empty data sets, unexpected data formats, and connection timeouts. Give 10 points if robust error handling is implemented throughout, 5 points if only basic error handling exists, and 0 points if exceptions are unhandled.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 5,
-      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. Viewer engagement metrics besides raw count 2. Notification system for significant viewer changes 3. Predictive analytics for viewer trends). Add 3 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 6,
-      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
-      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant implementation of similar functions (e.g., multiple methods updating the same state) 2. Function modules unrelated to viewer count tracking 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations that impact data refresh rates). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 7,
-      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
-      "description": "Review modular design (separation of data fetching, state management, and UI rendering), component reusability, and proper use of Vue3 features. Deduct 5 points if global state is used where component state would suffice; deduct 5 points if the codebase shows significant repetition; deduct 5 points if Vue3 reactivity system is misused. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 8,
-      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the design follows modern UI principles: 1) Harmonious color scheme appropriate for data visualization (distinguishable data series, proper contrast) 2) Clean layout with appropriate spacing between elements 3) Typography that enhances readability of metrics and labels (proper sizing hierarchy, readable fonts). Deduct 3 points for cluttered interfaces, 5 points for poor color choices affecting data readability, and 5 points for inconsistent styling. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the real-time updates and transitions follow good UX principles: 1) Smooth transitions when counts update (no jarring changes) 2) Clear visual indication of new data arrival 3) Appropriate animation speed for count changes (not too fast to read, not too slow to feel outdated). Deduct 5 points for abrupt visual changes during updates, 3 points for missing loading states, and 5 points for animations that distract from data comprehension. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Web Applications-Communication",
-  "difficulty": "easy"
-}

package/library/web_applications-communication/vue3-element-plus-wechat-chat-interface.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 1200,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Be sure to provide executable code whenever possible. I need to design a WeChat-like chat interface. Please help me write a page component using element-plus and Vue 3.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the basic UI structure of a WeChat-like chat interface implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code properly implements the essential UI components of a chat interface using Element Plus and Vue 3: contact list sidebar, chat area with message bubbles, input area with send button, and header with user information. Score 0 if basic structure is missing, 5 if only partial components are implemented, and 10 if all core components with proper layout are fully implemented.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the message display functionality properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Check if the code correctly handles different message types (text, image, voice, etc.), renders them appropriately with sender/recipient distinction, displays timestamps, and supports message status indicators (sent, delivered, read). Deduct 3 points if message styling lacks sender distinction, 4 points if timestamps are missing, and 5 points if different message types aren't properly supported. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the input functionality with sending mechanism implemented?",
-      "description": "Verify that the chat input area includes text input with proper validation, send button functionality, emoji picker integration, and file attachment options. Check for event handling (Enter key to send, Shift+Enter for new line). Deduct 3 points for missing emoji support, 4 points for lack of input validation, and 5 points if file attachment isn't implemented. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the contact management and conversation switching implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate if the code properly implements contact list display, conversation switching logic, unread message counters, contact search functionality, and persistence of chat history when switching conversations. Deduct 3 points if search functionality is missing, 4 points if unread counters aren't implemented, and 5 points if chat history doesn't persist between conversation switches. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as empty messages, failed message delivery, network errors, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should be able to effectively handle these edge cases, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no exceptions are handled, give 0 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 5,
-      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. Message reactions 2. Voice messages with waveform visualization 3. Read receipts with timestamps 4. Typing indicators). Add 3 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 6,
-      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
-      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant implementation of similar functions (e.g., multiple message sending methods coexisting) 2. Function modules unrelated to chat (e.g., a built-in game) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 7,
-      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
-      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating UI components, state management, and service layers), proper use of Vue 3 Composition API, reusable components, and proper integration with Element Plus. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or design patterns are not used; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if Vue 3 features aren't properly leveraged. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 8,
-      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the overall design follows WeChat-like design principles: 1) Consistent color scheme with WeChat's green accent 2) Proper layout spacing (chat bubbles aligned appropriately, proper padding) 3) Professional typography system (readable font sizes, appropriate line heights). Deduct 3 points for each misaligned visual element, 5 points for inconsistent styling with WeChat, and 5 points for poor readability. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the dynamic effects conform to chat application expectations: 1) Message sending feedback delay ≤ 100ms 2) Smooth scrolling in message history 3) Proper transitions when switching conversations. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for jerky scrolling, and 5 points for abrupt conversation transitions. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Web Applications-Communication",
-  "difficulty": "easy"
-}

package/library/web_applications-communication/vue3-pinia-token-auth-login-module.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 1405,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure the code you produce is executable when possible. Using Vue3, Pinia, and token authentication, generate code for a login module.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the Vue3 Composition API implementation complete and standardized?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code correctly uses Vue3 Composition API features including setup(), ref/reactive state management, computed properties, and lifecycle hooks. Check if the component structure follows Vue3 best practices with proper template syntax, event handling, and form binding. Score 0 if using Options API or Vue2 syntax, 5 if basic Composition API is used but lacks proper reactivity patterns, and 10 if fully leveraging Vue3's advanced features with proper TypeScript support.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the Pinia store architecture properly designed and implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether Pinia store is correctly configured with proper state management, actions, and getters. Check if the authentication state is properly managed with user data, login status, and token storage. Verify if store actions handle async operations correctly with proper error handling. Deduct 5 points if store mutations are used instead of actions, 3 points if state persistence is not implemented, and 2 points if store modularity is poor. Full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the token authentication mechanism secure and comprehensive?",
-      "description": "Check whether the token authentication includes secure token storage (preferably httpOnly cookies or secure localStorage), automatic token refresh logic, and proper header injection for API requests. Verify if JWT token validation, expiration handling, and logout token cleanup are implemented. Deduct 5 points if tokens are stored in plain localStorage without encryption, 3 points if no refresh token mechanism exists, and 5 points if no token expiration validation is present. Full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the complete login workflow with route protection implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code includes comprehensive login flow with form validation, API integration, loading states, and route guards. Check if protected routes redirect to login page and successful login redirects to intended destination. Verify if 'remember me' functionality and auto-login on page refresh are implemented. Deduct 5 points if no route protection exists, 3 points if form validation is incomplete, and 2 points if loading states are missing. Give 10 points if fully implemented with proper UX flow.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust with comprehensive error handling?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common scenarios such as network failures, invalid credentials, server errors, token expiration, and malformed responses. Check if user-friendly error messages are displayed and proper fallback mechanisms exist. Code with strong robustness should gracefully handle edge cases like concurrent login attempts and session conflicts, giving 10 points. If robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no error handling exists, give 0 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 5,
-      "title": "Are there innovative features that enhance user experience?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code includes advanced features that improve login experience (e.g., 1. Biometric authentication support 2. Social login integration 3. Progressive form validation with real-time feedback 4. Adaptive security measures based on login patterns 5. Multi-factor authentication). Add 2-3 points for each well-implemented innovative feature (maximum 10 points).",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 6,
-      "title": "Are there any redundant or unnecessary implementations?",
-      "description": "Strictly check for three types of redundancy: 1. Duplicate authentication logic across components 2. Unnecessary third-party libraries for simple operations 3. Over-engineered validation that impacts performance 4. Redundant API calls or excessive state watchers. Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if core login functionality is compromised by unnecessary complexity.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 7,
-      "title": "Does the code demonstrate high engineering quality standards?",
-      "description": "Review component modularity, separation of concerns (auth logic, UI components, API services), TypeScript usage, and code organization. Check for proper composable functions, reusable utilities, and clean architecture patterns. Deduct 5 points if authentication logic is mixed with UI components; deduct 3 points if no TypeScript definitions exist; deduct 5 points if code lacks proper commenting and documentation. Full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 8,
-      "title": "Does the login interface meet modern design and accessibility standards?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the login form follows contemporary UI/UX principles: 1) Clean, minimal design with proper visual hierarchy 2) Accessible form labels and ARIA attributes 3) Responsive design for mobile devices 4) Professional color scheme and typography 5) Proper spacing and alignment. Deduct 3 points for poor mobile responsiveness, 5 points for accessibility violations, and 3 points for unprofessional visual appearance. Full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Are the interactions smooth with proper feedback mechanisms?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the login interactions provide immediate and clear feedback: 1) Form validation feedback appears within 200ms 2) Loading states during authentication with progress indicators 3) Smooth transitions between login states 4) Clear success/error message presentation 5) Keyboard navigation support. Deduct 5 points for missing loading indicators, 3 points for delayed validation feedback, and 5 points for poor keyboard accessibility. Full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Web Applications-Communication",
-  "difficulty": "medium"
-}

package/library/web_applications-communication/vue3-tiptap-yjs-shared-editor.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 1241,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Be sure to ensure that the generated code is executable for demonstration purposes. Implement a shared editor using Vue 3, Tiptap, and Yjs.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the shared editor core functionality properly implemented with Tiptap and Yjs?",
-      "description": "Check if the code correctly integrates Tiptap as the rich text editor framework with Yjs for real-time collaboration. The implementation should include proper document synchronization, cursor positions sharing, and handling of concurrent edits. Score 0 if integration is missing, 5 if basic integration exists but with limited features, and 10 if the integration is complete with full collaborative editing capabilities.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the Vue 3 integration correctly implemented with Composition API?",
-      "description": "Evaluate if the code leverages Vue 3's Composition API effectively for state management and component organization. Check for proper use of reactive references, computed properties, lifecycle hooks, and component structure. Deduct 5 points if reactive data management is poorly implemented, 3 points if components are not properly structured, and 2 points if Vue 3 specific features aren't utilized. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Are real-time collaboration features fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Assess the implementation of collaboration features such as awareness (showing who's editing), cursor/selection highlighting, conflict resolution, and synchronization provider setup. Check if the code includes WebRTC or a proper WebSocket provider for Yjs. Deduct 5 points if user presence is not visualized, 3 points if conflict resolution is weak, and 3 points if synchronization is unreliable. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is there proper offline support and data persistence?",
-      "description": "Evaluate if the editor implements offline capabilities with local persistence and proper reconnection handling. Check for IndexedDB integration, state recovery mechanisms, and offline edit queueing. Deduct 5 points if offline editing is not supported, 3 points if synchronization after reconnection is problematic, and 2 points if there's no local persistence of documents. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as network interruptions, concurrent edit conflicts, browser compatibility issues, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should be able to effectively handle these edge cases, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no exceptions are handled, give 0 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 5,
-      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. Commenting/annotation system 2. Document version history with diff viewing 3. Custom collaboration-friendly plugins 4. AI-assisted editing features). Add 3 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 6,
-      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
-      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant implementation of similar functions (e.g., multiple state synchronization mechanisms) 2. Function modules unrelated to collaborative editing (e.g., unnecessary media embeddings) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 7,
-      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
-      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating editor logic/UI components/collaboration services), unit test coverage, and build process automation. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or design patterns are not used; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if the build process is not automated. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 8,
-      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the overall design follows modern design principles: 1) Harmonious color matching (no more than 3 primary colors) 2) Proper layout spacing (element spacing follows the 8px multiple principle) 3) Professional font system (body font size ≥ 14px, line height over 1.5 times). Deduct 3 points for each crowded visual element, 5 points for a glaring color combination, and 5 points for chaotic text-image layout. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the dynamic effects conform to human perception characteristics: 1) Real-time updates appear within 100ms 2) UI updating smoothly during collaborative editing 3) Clear visual indicators for remote user actions. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for visual glitches during collaborative editing, and 5 points for confusing or inconsistent collaboration indicators. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Web Applications-Communication",
-  "difficulty": "hard"
-}

package/library/web_applications-communication/vue3-uni-app-chat-conversation-text-display.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 1011,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure the code you generate is executable for demonstration. Vue3 Uni-app text display sentence by sentence, showing like a chat conversation.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the Vue3 Uni-app text display component fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code properly implements a Vue3 component that displays text sentence by sentence. Check if the component uses Vue3's Composition API correctly (refs, reactive, setup(), etc.). Score 0 if no functional component is implemented, 5 if the component works but without proper Vue3 paradigms, and 10 if the implementation follows Vue3 best practices with proper reactivity.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the sentence-by-sentence display mechanism properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate if the text is properly split into sentences (using regex or appropriate string manipulation) and displayed with a natural timing mechanism. Check if the implementation handles edge cases like empty strings, single sentences, and punctuation correctly. Deduct 5 points if sentence detection is flawed, and 3 points if the timing mechanism is too simplistic. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is Uni-app cross-platform compatibility addressed?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code accounts for Uni-app's cross-platform requirements and uses platform-agnostic APIs. Verify that the component works across different platforms (iOS, Android, H5) without platform-specific code or with proper conditional compilation. Deduct 5 points if the code only works on a single platform, and 3 points if it uses deprecated Uni-app methods. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the chat conversation UX/UI properly designed?",
-      "description": "Assess if the implementation includes appropriate chat UI elements (message bubbles, timestamps, user avatars, etc.) and follows a proper conversation flow. Check if the component includes features like message status indicators and typing animations. Give 10 points if it fully resembles a professional chat interface, 5 points for basic conversation display, and 0 points if no chat-like UI is implemented.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as empty messages, extremely long sentences, network-loaded content, etc.) and provide friendly error handling. Code with strong robustness should be able to effectively handle these edge cases, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no exceptions are handled, give 0 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 5,
-      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. Customizable typing speed 2. Text-to-speech integration 3. Read receipts or status indicators). Add 3 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 6,
-      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
-      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant animation or timing logic 2. Function modules unrelated to text display (e.g., unnecessary network calls) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations or transitions). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 7,
-      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
-      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating display logic/typing mechanics/styling), component reusability, and proper Vue3 practices. Deduct 5 points if global state is misused; deduct 5 points if the code has poor separation of concerns; deduct 5 points if Vue3 reactivity system is bypassed with direct DOM manipulation. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 8,
-      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the overall design follows modern chat UI principles: 1) Distinguishable message bubbles with proper contrast 2) Consistent padding and margins (following the 8px rule) 3) Readable typography (font size ≥ 14px, appropriate line height). Deduct 3 points for cluttered message layout, 5 points for poor contrast making text hard to read, and 5 points for inconsistent bubble styling. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the typing animation and text transition smooth and natural?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the sentence-by-sentence display feels natural: 1) Appropriate typing speed (neither too fast nor too slow) 2) Smooth transitions between sentences 3) Natural pauses at punctuation. Deduct 5 points if the typing effect feels mechanical, 3 points for jarring transitions between sentences, and 5 points if the timing doesn't account for sentence length or complexity. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Web Applications-Communication",
-  "difficulty": "easy"
-}

package/library/web_applications-communication/vue3-uniapp-socketio-chat-dialogue-box.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 283,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Be sure to provide executable code demonstrations when possible. Help me write a beautiful couple's chat dialogue box based on Vue3, uni-app and Socket.io.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the Vue3 component structure properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate the component architecture for the chat dialogue box. Check if it uses Vue3 composition API effectively with proper reactive data, computed properties, and lifecycle hooks. Verify separation of concerns (UI components, data handling, socket connection management). Deduct 5 points if still using Vue2 patterns, 3 points if composition API is poorly implemented, and 3 points if reactive references are misused. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the uni-app cross-platform adaptation implemented correctly?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code properly utilizes uni-app APIs for multi-platform compatibility. Check for conditional platform-specific code, proper usage of uni-app UI components, and responsive layouts that work across mobile/desktop. Verify if platform-specific edge cases are handled (iOS safe areas, Android back button). Deduct 5 points if only works on one platform, 3 points if missing key platform adaptations. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the Socket.io integration complete and robust?",
-      "description": "Assess the Socket.io implementation for real-time messaging. Verify presence of connection management (connect, disconnect, reconnect), proper event handling, typing indicators, read receipts, and error handling. Check for disconnection resilience with message queue/local storage. Deduct 5 points if missing reconnection logic, 3 points if lacking offline message handling, and 3 points if connection state isn't visually indicated. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the couple-specific chat functionality well-designed?",
-      "description": "Evaluate special features tailored for couples: private photo sharing, calendar/date planning, mood tracking, anniversary reminders, etc. Check for couple-specific UI elements like paired avatars, relationship milestone tracking, or customized themes. Deduct 5 points if implementation is generic without couple-specific features, 3 points if couple features exist but are poorly integrated. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as network interruption, message send failures, invalid inputs, image upload errors, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should be able to effectively handle these edge cases, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no exceptions are handled, give 0 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 5,
-      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. Voice/video call integration 2. Custom animated emojis/stickers for couples 3. Message translation for multilingual couples 4. Interactive games within the chat). Add 3 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 6,
-      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
-      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant implementation of similar functions (e.g., multiple message sending methods) 2. Function modules unrelated to couple communication (e.g., unnecessary social features) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations that cause lag). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core chat functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 7,
-      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
-      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating UI/business logic/network layers), component reusability, code documentation, and adherence to Vue3/uni-app best practices. Deduct 5 points if global state management is poorly implemented; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if there's no error logging or debugging capabilities. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 8,
-      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the chat UI follows modern design principles: 1) Romantic yet clean color scheme suitable for couples 2) Clear message distinction between partners with personalized bubbles 3) Proper spacing and typography for readability (body font size ≥ 14px, line height 1.5x). Deduct 3 points for cluttered layouts, 5 points for unappealing color combinations, and 5 points for poor information hierarchy. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the chat interactions conform to user expectations: 1) Message sending/receiving animations feel natural 2) Smooth scrolling and message history loading 3) Responsive UI feedback for all actions (typing, message sent/read). Deduct 5 points for laggy scrolling, 3 points for jarring transitions, and 5 points if the chat doesn't automatically scroll to new messages. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Web Applications-Communication",
-  "difficulty": "easy"
-}